Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Popular Cycle Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. vs Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 24 August, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: C/277/2010
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 689(GR.VI)/2009(JNCH)/IMP-
302 dated 30th November 2009 passed by the Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II.]
The Popular Cycle Mfg Pvt Ltd ... Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Customs (import)
Nhava Sheva ...Respondent
Appearance:
None for appellant Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Hon'ble Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 31/07/2018 Date of decision: 24/08/2018 ORDER NO: A/87137 / 2018 Per: C J Mathew The issue in this appeal against order-in-appeal no. 689(GR.VI)/2009(JNCH)/IMP-302 dated 30th November 2009 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II pertains to the C/277/2010 2 enhancement of value ordered by the original authority under rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and upheld by the first appellate authority. Appellant filed bill of entry no. 753266/19.01.2009 for clearance of 489 nos. 'elliptical bike and AB trainer' which was held to have been undervalued with consequent enhancement.
2. None appeared for appellant. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative.
3. It is seen that the goods that were imported were unbranded and, owing to the failure of the importer to produce documents called for, the declared price of US $ 12,981 was rejected. It is also seen from the records that the original authority has rendered a finding that value of identical or similar goods could not be ascertained owing to the lack of a brand. It is noted that the 'best method' had been resorted to with the 'maximum retail price' marked on the packages which contained the equipment in completely knocked-down condition as the basis. After abating a reasonable 30%, in addition to ` 500/- per piece towards assembly and local transportation, the value of the goods was enhanced to ` 9,71,906/- with differential duty of ` 78,412/-.
4. On a perusal of the bill of entry, we take note that the facts as found by the original authority are not contestable. The lower C/277/2010 3 authorities have justified the enhancement which is in conformity with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Hence, there is no reason for us to interfere with the order of the lower authorities.
5. We, dismiss the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court on 24/08/2018)
(Ajay Sharma) (C J Mathew)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
*/as010802080808